Theme: Training and Simulation MT 2/2022 · 9 opposing wills,” the Corps recognised this was not the case: changes had to be made. ITX rotations made great use of live fire phases in a number of scenarios, as does the British Army during its exercises in Kenya. The Tactical Training and Exercise Control Group that provide the ITX OPFOR with some exercise control functions – and are also responsible for safety – are able to deviate from standard safety procedures in the DA-PAM 365-63 range safety manual to allow marines to operate closer to terminal weapon effects. Although ITX rotations allow such proximity, this is still a sanitised experience compared to real life. It is no surprise, therefore, that the USMC reported that there were still shortcomings in training outcomes. After all, live ordnance is designed to kill, so its use in a training environment must be handled with care and can never replicate real combat. But exposing exercising troops to live fire scenarios is not a panacea, as live targets don’t shoot back. In addition, most targets remain static or pop-up from static and, therefore, predictable positions. From an artillery perspective, fire is directed against static targets – usually old tank hulks. These targets do not move, which therefore makes adjusting fire onto the target an easy proposition. In real life, the targets would be moving away from shell impacts and seeking cover. So what does the US Marine Corps seek to achieve with FoFTS-Next? In June 2021 the USMC System Command’s Program Manager for Training Systems (PM TRASYS) awarded Saab Inc a contract, potentially valued at $127.9 million, “to help Marines better understand the future battlefield and improve their overall performance, both individually and as part of a unit”. FoFTS-Next is a two-way, laser-based solution that is replacing the Instrumented Tactical Engagement Simulation System (ITESS) and, according to the Corps, brings a number of key improvements that, together, introduce “near real-time friction”. These improvements include time-annotated records of an individual’s movements, details of weapon use and accurate ballistic models. The latter provide accurate ammunition time of flight and ballistic trajectories. One other key benefit of FoFTS-Next is that the system complies with NATO’s Urban Combat Advanced Training Technology (UCATT) ground, foliage or structures around them. Such impacts are magnified in the case of larger calibre or anti-armour weapons. At present, these effects are not simulated during force-on-force training and, in most scenarios on large training areas, are impossible. The reasons for this failure are normally laid at the door of technical issues, safety, cost or environmental restrictions. Whatever the case, these can lead to unrealistic training and the drawing of false lessons by participants and senior commanders. The other negative factor associated with such training is the integration of other kinetic and non-kinetic assets, such as indirect fire, air-launched weapons, minefields, UAS and CBRN. In addition, stressing the logistic and medical CASEVAC processes is also difficult. The reason that laser-based TESS started with the simulation of infantry and armour direct-fire weapons over 40 years ago is simple; they were the easiest to replicate – albeit with a recognised lack of fidelity – but the question on many military lips today is – how far have we really progressed? Companies such as Cubic Defense would argue that there has been progress, and cite their ‘synthetic wrap’ solution as proof thereof. The company says that this solution “expands the instrumented live training environment by adding virtual and constructive training systems, allowing the soldier to train with platforms and deliver effects that would otherwise be precluded by cost, scarcity or safety”. Such additions include Joint Fires and ISTAR that can be melded into live field training: although marginally beneficial, they lack realism. Saab, also, would doubtless highlight improvements to ballistic simulation and the addition of new types of weapons into the mix that, taken together, have given laser-based TESS an added dimension. As in the case of synthetic wrap, however, compromises have to be made – and realism becomes a casualty. FoFTS-Next There is no doubt that the US Marine Corps is grappling with some of these thorny questions, considering how best to improve force-on-force training and, indeed, all its current training. Its new, invigorated approach was reflected two years ago, when it changed the status of its Training and Education Command from a two- to a three-star post. Over the past two years, the current head of this command, Lt Gen Lewis Craparotta, has emphasised the need to invest in force-on-force training, to enable units to learn representative training lessons that can be applied to combat situations. Such training has become a priority for the Corps, and this is reflected in the Force-on-Force Training System-Next (FoFTS-Next) programme, designed to improve “warfighter readiness”. The concept behind FoFTS-Next came from the USMC’s Integrated Training Exercises (ITX), held at the Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center (MCCAGC) at Twentynine Palms, California. Reflecting on the MCDP 1 Warfighting tactical manual, which says “exercises should approximate the conditions of war as much as possible; that is, they should introduce friction in the form of uncertainty, stress, disorder, and A long-standing, well-established practitioner of and commentator on the training and simulation market, Trevor Nash brings unique perspective to MilTech’s coverage of the sector. The realism of laser-based TESS has improved over the years, with the addition of systems such as Cubic’s synthetic wrap. (Photo: Trevor Nash) Safety issues mean that troops on exercise cannot be subject to the terminal effects of real weapons such as the USMC M777 155 mm howitzer. (Photo: US DoD) f h
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=